PROPOSED MHO DEVELOPMENT AT OLD NAVAL RESERVE SITE - MERRIMON AVENUE

Signatures 397 total

Page: 1, 2, 3, 4, ... 8 › »

1. 1
   Name: Dean Hittleman on Jan 26, 2010

   Zip Code: 28804

   Comments: I use this post office nearly every day and it is so congested at times that I have to wait on Merrimon to get in and the exit is blocked from people trting to exit the post office that cannot get out due to the people trying to get in. They want to ADD MORE TRAFFIC? That is absurd!

   Flag
2. 2
   Name: Alexander M. Hedges on Jan 26, 2010

   Zip Code: 28804

   Comments:

   Flag
3. 3
   Name: Janan Leya on Jan 26, 2010

   Zip Code: 28804

   Comments:

   Flag
4. 4
   Name: Nancy Alenier on Jan 26, 2010

   Zip Code: 28804

   Comments: The proposed 60 unit project will over-burden the existing infrastructure, will put pedestrians and motorists in danger with increased traffic and congestion, and is too large to be compatible with the adjacent single-family home neighborhood. The project must be scaled-down and the existing zoning designation must stand.

   Flag
5. 5
   Name: Evie Tashie on Jan 26, 2010

   Zip Code: 28804

   Comments:

   Flag
6. 6
   Name: Daniel Hitchcock on Jan 26, 2010

   Zip Code: 28804

   Comments:

   Flag
7. 7
   Name: Lawrence O. Hall on Jan 26, 2010

   Zip Code: 28804

   Comments: I share the concerns as stated in the above petition.

   Flag
8. 8
   Name: Marta Fakhoury on Jan 26, 2010

   Zip Code: 28804

   Comments: We need to put our tax dollars into renovating current structures and offering those as affordable housing!!!! What about all the foreclosure properties ... why doesn't the city look into investing in that? Why are we always looking to build new when we need to restore some of the old!!!! I am available to head such a project - M

   Flag
9. 9
   Name: Laura Bowers on Jan 26, 2010

   Zip Code: 28804

   Comments: This is a very serious matter that could negatively impact current residents and future residents of the housing development. Is this proposed development creating a safe environment or a slum?

   Flag
10. 10
    Name: Tom Mangino on Jan 26, 2010

    Zip Code: 28804

    Comments:

    Flag
11. 11
    Name: Avian Thibault on Jan 26, 2010

    Zip Code: 28814

    Comments: I support the current zoning only.

    Flag
12. 12
    Name: David Moltke-Hansen on Jan 26, 2010

    Zip Code: 28804

    Comments:

    Flag
13. 13
    Name: Molly Russell on Jan 26, 2010

    Zip Code: 28804

    Comments:

    Flag
14. 14
    Name: Julie Willard on Jan 26, 2010

    Zip Code: 28804

    Comments:

    Flag
15. 15
    Name: Sharon Wilcox Moulds on Jan 26, 2010

    Zip Code: 28804

    Comments: I agree with the concern about traffic, as well as any detrimental impact to property values for the residential neighborhood. I'm grateful for MHO's willingness to get ideas and comments from the nearby residents, and MHO's concern about making their projects good for all involved or affected.

    Flag
16. 16
    Name: Peggy Gardner on Jan 26, 2010

    Zip Code: 28804

    Comments:

    Flag
17. 17
    Name: Leslie McCrory on Jan 27, 2010

    Zip Code: 28804

    Comments:

    Flag
18. 18
    Name: Linda Welsh on Jan 27, 2010

    Zip Code: 28804

    Comments: Planning and appropriate zoning cannot be ignored in this matter. Having had formal training in planning myself, I am asking you, from a professional standpoint, to reconsider your proposal. Please feel free to contact me with questions. The quality of life in North Asheville is something that the residents here value greatly. We pay very high taxes and deserve to have our voice heard in this matter. Thank you, Linda Welsh

    Flag
19. 19
    Name: Andrew Tashie on Jan 27, 2010

    Zip Code: 28804

    Comments: There is too much traffic in our neighborhood already. That site should be used to create something that will benefit the existing community surrounding it- such as a new or expanded community center, experimental learning center for the kids, or heaven forbid just a little green space!!!!

    Flag
20. 20
    Name: James Gardner on Jan 27, 2010

    Zip Code: 28804

    Comments:

    Flag
21. 21
    Name: Elizabeth Pope on Jan 27, 2010

    Zip Code: 28804

    Comments: I oppose having 60 units in this location. It is far too dense. I do believe 32 units would be more suitable. Thank you.

    Flag
22. 22
    Name: Lawrence D. Holt on Jan 27, 2010

    Zip Code: 28801

    Comments: I support the project but not at the density proposed.

    Flag
23. 23
    Name: Lisa G. Holt on Jan 27, 2010

    Zip Code: 28801

    Comments:

    Flag
24. 24
    Name: Nateesha Johnson on Jan 27, 2010

    Zip Code: 28804

    Comments:

    Flag
25. 25
    Name: Kim Dowd on Jan 28, 2010

    Zip Code: 28804

    Comments:

    Flag
26. 26
    Name: Tina Schwartz on Jan 29, 2010

    Zip Code: 28804

    Comments:

    Flag
27. 27
    Name: Linda Daignault on Jan 29, 2010

    Zip Code: 28804

    Comments:

    Flag
28. 28
    Name: Alison Downey on Jan 29, 2010

    Zip Code: 28804

    Comments: I am strongly for increasing density, when managed appropriately. The current zoning laws balance both considerations.

    Flag
29. 29
    Name: Marilyn Cook on Jan 29, 2010

    Zip Code: 28804

    Comments: There are locations that are more to the advantage of the Mountain Housing residents, as well as to the whole of North Asheville. In searching for a business site a few years ago, I found that Merrimon was the most trafficed road in Asheville. It will get even worse, bad for current businesses, and bad for the affordable housing residents and their children! Dr. Marilyn Cook

    Flag
30. 30
    Name: MaryJane Westall on Jan 29, 2010

    Zip Code: 28804

    Comments:

    Flag
31. 31
    Name: Marjorie Nance Kitch on Jan 29, 2010

    Zip Code: 28804

    Comments:

    Flag
32. 32
    Name: Wiley Westall on Jan 29, 2010

    Zip Code: 28804

    Comments:

    Flag
33. 33
    Name: Bonnie Cooper on Jan 30, 2010

    Zip Code: 28804

    Comments:

    Flag
34. 34
    Name: Brady Blackburn on Jan 30, 2010

    Zip Code: 28804

    Comments:

    Flag
35. 35
    Name: Patricia L. Poteat on Jan 30, 2010

    Zip Code: 28804

    Comments: I am VERY concerend about density, inadequate parking for residents, and the inevitable increase in traffic, on street/overflow parking, and congestion in a neighborhood in which these are already issues of concern. This project should not go forward as proposed.

    Flag
36. 36
    Name: David Rodgers on Jan 30, 2010

    Zip Code: 28804

    Comments:

    Flag
37. 37
    Name: Jack Westall, Jr on Jan 31, 2010

    Zip Code: 28804

    Comments: Edgewood Road is already a speedtrack between Kimberly and Merrimon, and it is not unusual at all to see cars speeding well in excess of 50 MPH on Edgewood. The added flow of traffic on Edgewood from the proposed high-density development (Edgewood is not policed) is unreasonable and unnecessary and is not beneficial to anyone, including the new residents that will occupy the added housing. The only other access is to Merrimon by the Post Office, unless the unopened section of Larchmont is opened to Melrose, which presents other problems. There are no sidewalks on either Long Street or Larchmont.

    Flag
38. 38
    Name: Laura M Burke on Jan 31, 2010

    Zip Code: 28804

    Comments: I support this project with LESS density.

    Flag
39. 39
    Name: John Skogman on Jan 31, 2010

    Zip Code: 28804

    Comments:

    Flag
40. 40
    Name: Eleanor Powers on Jan 31, 2010

    Zip Code: 28804

    Comments:

    Flag
41. 41
    Name: Barbara Toth on Jan 31, 2010

    Zip Code: 28804

    Comments:

    Flag
42. 42
    Name: Stephen Novak on Jan 31, 2010

    Zip Code: 28804

    Comments: agree with content of petition that the scale and density of the project is out of keeping with the existing residential character of the neighborhood.

    Flag
43. 43
    Name: Sarah Brown Sullivan on Jan 31, 2010

    Zip Code: 28804

    Comments: I support the project, just not at 60 units. After the Naval Reserve Center was torn down, senior housing was what I thought would be a good use for that site.

    Flag
44. 44
    Name: Tom Sullivan on Jan 31, 2010

    Zip Code: 28804

    Comments: I support MHO reusing the land for residential purposes, but share the concerns listed above. I'm less concerned about the specific zoning designation as long as the maximum residential density allowed per acre remains the same as current zoning. At a proposed density of 60 units, where would all the residents park? And if the parking is under the units to save footprint, the height of the units increases. (I have concerns about the building height allowed under Institutional zoning.) Has the city considered what the project's proposed density might do to the fire department's response time?

    Flag
45. 45
    Name: A. Eldridge Leake, Jr. on Jan 31, 2010

    Zip Code: 28804

    Comments:

    Flag
46. 46
    Name: Tim Flora on Jan 31, 2010

    Zip Code: 28804

    Comments:

    Flag
47. 47
    Name: Nancy McClinton on Feb 1, 2010

    Zip Code: 28804

    Comments:

    Flag
48. 48
    Name: MIchael Wilson on Feb 1, 2010

    Zip Code: 28804

    Comments:

    Flag
49. 49
    Name: Dave Bowman on Feb 1, 2010

    Zip Code: 28804

    Comments:

    Flag
50. 50
    Name: Ann Lansing on Feb 1, 2010

    Zip Code: 28804

    Comments:

    Flag

Page: 1, 2, 3, 4, ... 8 › »